Trump's path to victory

Trump has an easy, simple-minded path to victory in November, which is good for him as he is a simple-minded man.

There are two messages he should stress: first, we had no wars under his leadership, and two wars under Biden's leadership. And beyond that, Biden has arguably screwed up both wars. He has failed to cut off aid to Israel when it became obvious that Israel was using our aid to commit genocide against Palestinian civilians. And he refused, for a long time, to provde needed aid to Ukraine if that aid could be used to wage attacks inside Russia. Both approaches were dead wrong.

His second message should be that there was virtually no inflation during his term, and now there has been continuing inflation under Biden. Biden should try to counter this by pointing out that our inflation is the lowest in the world, emphasizing that this is a world-wide phenomenon, but this will not resonate with the average voter.

What Biden Has To Do

The things Biden needs to do to win re-election seem so simple to me, and yet Democratic candidates in the past have been so oblivious to the obvious. Here is a list.

1. Use Clinton and Obama as surrogates. Thse two ex-presidents both have awesome oratorical skills, skills which Biden lacks. As documented in Michael Cohen's book "Disloyal", Trump has a visceral hatred of Obama, so it is especially important to use Obama, as he can easily get under Trump's skin and induce outlandish comments from him.

2. Use lay people as surrogates. Robert de Niro has proven to be a strong surrogate, and he should be used. Also, the lady in Texas who was denied an abortion which was necessary to preserve her ability to have chidren in the future.

3. Pound the airwaves with hard-hitting ads showing Trump making outlandish claims. Use his own words against him.

4. Stress the theme that the Trump agenda is designed to "take away your rights". This includes the right to make your own reproductive decisions, the right to have your vote counted, the right to read books of your own choosing, the right to be free from gun viiolence, and many others. Pound this message to the voters.

5. Counter the question about "Are you better off than you were four years ago" with correct info that we are indeed way better off. Unemployment at a 50-year low, stock market at an all-time high, inflation the lowest in the world.

Presidential Election History, Part Five, How Parties Pick Their Candidates

This post will examine the three primary ways political parties have used to pick their candidates, and end with some speculation about the future.

I. The Congressional Caucus System (1792-1828). After George Washington took office in 1789, there quickly arose two parties, the Federalists, led by Hamilton, and the anti-Federalists, or Democratic-Republicans, led by Jefferson and Madison. Washington unanimously won re-election in 1792, but the two parties did field VP candidates, chosen by Congressional caususes in each of the parties. This system continued until 1828, although 1816 was the last election in which the Federalist Party fielded a presidential candidate. The caucuses would decide on the party's candidate, and the electors from each state would then choose between the candidates.

II. The Convention System (1832-1968). By 1824 the Federalist Party had died out, and in 1824 and 1828 the groups were known as either "Adams men" or Jackson men". After the election of Andrew Jackson in 1828, he proved to be such a polarizing figure that his opponents coalesced into a new party, called the Whig Party, and the name of Jackson's party was shortened to the Democratic Party. The election of 1832 saw the start of national political conventions as the means by which parties nominated their candidates. Not only did both the Whig and Democratic Parties have conventions that year, but the Anti-Masonic Party also had one.

Despite all its obvious drawbacks, the convention system schlepped along for 120 years, until in 1952 television came into the picture and revealed just how dysfunctional it was. As Eugene Roseboom states:

"The noisy inattention of delegates, the artificial demonstrations, the banal oratory, the parliamentary tangles and public quarreling, the mysterious deals and shiftings of votes behind the camera's eye, the "show-off" delegates who demanded polls of their delegations just to give themselves a brief television appearance, the hectic carnival atmosphere--all were disillusioning to citizens who, before the television era, had thought of a convention as a kind of deliberative assembly. Radio had revealed unlovely aspects, but the camera was devastating."

The 1952 Democratic Convention, when Stevenson was nominated on the third ballot, was the last time it took more than one ballot to nominate a candidate. Conventions since then have been largely devoid of suspense and interest, and today the proceedings are totally scripted.

If 1952 marked the beginning of the end for the convention system, 1968 marked the actual end, when Hubert Humphrey got the Democratic nomination without having entered a single primary. The whole Democratic Convention was a complete disaster, with police brutality reigning supreme both inside and outside the convention hall.

III. The Partisan Primary System (1972-2024). After the 1968 debacle, changes were obviously needed, and the Democrats formed a commission to suggest changes. This ushered in the partisan primary system.

The problems with the partisan primary system immediately became evident, as an extreme candidate, George McGovern, took advantage of the new rules and became the Democratic nominee in 1972, only to be trounced by Richard Nixon in the general election. The problem with the partisan primary system is that it has tended to produce ideologically extreme candidates who did not appeal to more moderate, general election voters.

The drawbacks with the partisan primary system came into focus in 2012, when we were subjected to the spectacle of Mitt Romney trying his best to falsely portray himself as an extreme conservative, in order to win the GOP nomination. After painting himself into this corner, he had no chance in the general election against Barack Obama.

But the complete breakdown of the partisan primary system occurred in 2016, when both of the two main parties nominated candidates with negative approval ratings. In the final Gallup Poll before the election, the candidates had the two worst disapproval ratings since Gallup began polling for this in 1956. Donald Trump had a 61% disapproval rating, and Hillary Clinton 52%. This disaster of an election was illustrated by the fact that there were ten faithless electors, who voted for a different candidate than they were pledged to, the most in history to defect from presidential candidates who were still alive.

And now, in 2024, we have this same situation, with the two presumptive candidates, Trump and Biden, both having disapproval ratings of over 50%. Latest ratings have Trump at 52% disapproval, and Biden at 54%. It has now become clear that the partisan primary system has run its course and should be discarded.

IV. The Nonpartisan Primary System. This section is totally aspirational. It is clear that changes are needed, but enacting those changes will be a heavy lift.

I have always found it odd that the government is involved in the process the two main parties have of choosing their candidates. It is basically welfare for the parties, in that the government pays for the primaries which the parties have used to pick their candidates.

Primaries should be nonpartisan and open to all candidates. The top two then could go on to the general election. This would discourage the blatant partisanship which has infected our politics. And it would give a chance for third-party candidates to have their voices heard.

On Fecklessness

"Feckless" is a good adjective which should be used more than it is. It means "worthlessness due to being feeble and ineffectual". It derives from the Scottish "feck", meaning "effect". "Feckful" has disappeared from the lexicon, but "feckless" is still a useful and serviceable word.

What brings this to mind is an article I came across this morning about Jimmy Carter's boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics, the boycott being Carter's ill-considered response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The article described an encounter Carter had on an airplane years later, with an athlete who missed out on his Olympic experience due to the boycott. Carter said he was sorry, and he admitted that the boycott had been a mistake.

The boycott was a totally feckless response to the Afghanistan invasion. It punished the U.S. athletes, people who had trained all their lives for the chance to particiapte in an Olympics, while doing nothing to punish the Soviet Union. (And, of course, the Soviet Union reciprocated by in turn boycotting the 1984 summer games in Los Angeles.) The article mentioned that of the 466 U.S. athletes who had qualified for the team, 219 would never get to another Olympics.

Another weak and ineffectual president, Joe Biden, demonstrated his fecklessness when he described Bibi Netanyahu's genocide in Gaza as "over-the-top". My (sarcastic) reaction was, "Oh boy, that will sure make Bibi quake in his boots." A strong presidential response would have been to cut off all arms shipments to Israel until the genocide stopped. But Biden's response wass totally feckless.

Another example of fecklessness was when a friend of mine advocated not buying products made in Mexico, as a protest against how the Mexican companies mistreat their workers. My response was, "How will not buying their products lead to the companies treating their workers better? If anything, denying the companies a market for their products will cause the companies to tighten their belts, i.e., treat their workers even worse."